On the trail of terrorists

Too little is known of the activities and connections of 35-year-old Guadeloupe-born French national Willie Virgile Brigitte to be sure what threat he posed to the security of Australia. The Premier, Bob Carr, says his arrest and interrogation may have disrupted a terrorist cell in Australia and that "there are good reasons for treating the matter with the utmost seriousness". The federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, says "it's a little too early to claim victory in relation to these matters". And the French authorities, who now hold Mr Brigitte, describe him as "small fry" - but of interest because of the way he was recruited. That is, first through contact with Islamic radicals in suburban Paris, from where he was sent to Yemen, and then to a suspected Taliban or al-Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.

It is important to know precisely what Mr Brigitte - otherwise known as Abderrahmane, since his conversion to Islam - was doing in Australia. But it is also reassuring to see how effectively the French and Australian authorities appear to have co-operated in securing his arrest. As a result, they appear to have gathered useful information about not only his past activities but also possible future threats he and others known to him might pose.

If it is true that Mr Brigitte was involved in the assassination of the former anti-Taliban leader in Afghanistan, Ahmed Shah Massood - who was killed by a suicide bomber posing as a television cameraman on September 9, 2001 - it adds interest to his resume. And if, as the Europe 1 radio station has reported, he was in Australia to shelter another man expert in explosives, very serious questions are raised. Not all of them, however, necessarily point to Australia as a terrorist target, as distinct from a refuge or staging point for terrorists.

If Mr Brigitte's presence here did pose a direct threat of terrorist attack that in turn, and not for the first time, will raise questions about how well prepared Australia is to counter such a threat. There is naturally concern that Mr Brigitte was in Australia for at least five months before being detained on October 9 and questioned by the Australian authorities, ahead of his deportation to France on October 17. And it is remarkable that the first Australia heard from the French authorities about his possible presence in Australia was on September 22, long after he entered the country unhindered on a tourist visa on May 16.

It is premature, however, to suggest, as the Federal Opposition leader, Simon Crean, has done, that there has been a failure of co-operation between French and Australian authorities. That said, it is essential that, in good time, the governments of both countries keep faith with their citizens, on whose co-operation they depend so much in such matters. This means the French and Australian authorities should eventually provide the fullest possible account of what they have learnt from this case - including the extent to which the activities of Mr Brigitte and others might have constituted a threat, and an unvarnished assessment of the co-operation between the two countries.

Fair price for water access

Predictably, the rent review for private household assets built on Sydney's public waterways has provoked the usual stir about greedy taxation and anomalous application of such rents. Very few would choose to pay more. That's human nature. But these criticisms are over-reactions ahead of the completion of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) review.

Annual government fees for private jetties, boatsheds, ramps, harbour and river pools and privately reclaimed waterways are not the taxes the Opposition suggests by branding the review "another Bob Carr tax grab". They are payment for the private use of waterways owned collectively by all. Is the Opposition spokeswoman on planning, Peta Seaton, suggesting that waterfront households, which add an estimated $250,000 to $800,000 to individual property values by including these extensions over public waterways, should enjoy the privilege and profit without cost? Any fee, however, must be fair. And fairness involves issues of how the rents are set and whether their application causes instances of undue hardship.

Since 1988, 1400 Sydney waterway renters have paid an average $1000 a year to the NSW Waterways Authority. Another 6500 NSW waterfront leases are managed by the Lands Department for properties fronting other waterways, including 2900 around Pittwater and Port Hacking. These leases were last reviewed in 1990.

The Government wants IPART to do away with ad hoc rent applications and to adopt a formula which would tie rents to the value of the adjoining house block. The unimproved land valuation per square metre would be halved and multiplied by 6 per cent, then multiplied by the waterway area under occupation. For example, 1000 square metres of land valued at $1 million is attached to a private jetty 10 metres long and three metres wide. Under this formula, the annual rent for the jetty area would be $900.

Some households, of course, are asset rich and cash poor; for others, the waterway is the only access to their properties. Their special needs must be accommodated, but these anomalies are not grounds for opposing this overdue review. Homes without road access are easily identified and their waterway rent can be discounted appropriately. IPART could also consider allowing cash-strapped waterfront pensioners, for instance, to defer rents against their estates.

By including such safeguards, the Government's rent formula proposal should overcome criticisms about individual affordability while achieving fair financial compensation for the waterway owners by helping to afford services for the people of NSW.